Shut down the EPA?

[Sbane]

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

[Sbane]

No (sane), I'd rather not have rivers looking like this:

Are you dumb?

[Sbane]

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

[Sbane]

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

[Sbane]

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

You really need to quit blaming the EPA for Californian NIMBYism. I suppose you think that the EPA is responsible for all the Republicans suing to stop HSR?

Also, it turns out that frackers illegally dumped 3 billion gallons of polluted wastewater into the groundwater here in California. Is that the EPA's fault too?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/71609

LOL you do realize that I admitted California NIMBYism is the cause of problems in addition to the EPA, don't you. Indeed, I did it in the very post you responded to.